REPORTABLE    

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 339 OF 2007

Anup Bhushan Vohra      .... Appellant(s)

Versus

The Registrar General,  High Court of Judicature at Calcutta             .... Respondent(s)

WITH

     CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 340, 345, 346, 358, 362, 388, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398,  

399 and 400 of 2007

J U D G M E N T  

P. Sathasivam, J.

1) These  appeals,  under  Section  19  of  the  Contempt  of  

Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), are filed  

against  the  common judgment  and  order  dated  02.03.2007  

1

passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature  

at Calcutta in Suo Moto Contempt Motion being Crl.C.P.No.1  

of 2007 with C.R.R. No. 187 of 2007 whereby the High Court  

found  all  the  appellants  guilty  of  criminal  contempt  and  

sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of  

six months with a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and, in default of  

payment  of  fine  within  a  period  of  one  month,  to  further  

undergo simple imprisonment for one month.  

2) Brief facts:  

a) A Committee was constituted by some local persons, who  

were  active  in  public  life,  along  with  lawyers  at  Jalpaiguri  

named  “Circuit  Bench  ‘O’  Sarbik  Unnayan  Dabi  Adyay  

Samannya Committee,  Jalpaiguri”  (hereinafter referred to as  

“the Committee”).  The Committee had passed a resolution for  

the formation of a High Court Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri and  

in  order  to  achieve  the  said  purpose  to  stage  Satyagrah in  

front of the District Court at Jalpaiguri.  The Members of the  

Committee put their resolution into action on 15.12.2006 and  

started agitation outside the main gate of the District Court  

premises and put up a rostrum there on which a number of  

2

persons  started  sitting  in  Satyagrah.   They  prevented  the  

Judicial  Officers  including  the  District  Judge,  Jalpaiguri  to  

enter  into  the  Court  premises  from that  day.   In  order  to  

overcome the said situation, the District Judge drew attention  

of such fact to the Inspector-in-Charge, Kotwali Police Station,  

Jalpaiguri for extending police help, but no action was taken.  

Subsequently,  the  District  Judge brought the  matter  to  the  

notice of the Registrar General of the High Court of Calcutta  

for taking necessary steps.

b) After taking note of the situation, Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.  

S.  Sirpurkar,  the  then  Chief  Justice  of  the  High  Court,  

instructed the District Judge through the Registrar General to  

seek necessary help and protection from the Superintendent of  

Police, Jalpaiguri to take immediate steps so that the Judicial  

Officers could enter the Court premises and attend the judicial  

work.  The District Judge conveyed the said decision of the  

High  Court  to  the  Superintendent  of  Police,  Jalpaiguri  but  

failed  to  get  any  response  from  him.   Subsequently,  he  

approached the District Magistrate but no action was taken  

from his end also.  Failing to get any response either from the  

3

Superintendent of Police or the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri,  

the District Judge sent a note to the then Chief Justice of the  

Calcutta  High  Court  who  gave  direction  over  phone  to  the  

Director General of Police to take effective steps without any  

further delay.  The Director General of Police gave assurance  

that he would take up the matter with the Home Secretary,  

Government of West Bengal and also suggested the Registrar  

General to inform the District Judge to write to the District  

Magistrate,  Jalpaiguri  to  take  steps  for  ensuring  proper  

functioning of the Court with a copy to the Superintendent of  

Police, Jalpaiguri.   On 12.01.2007, the District  Judge again  

wrote to the District Magistrate.  In spite of that, no effective  

development had taken place and the Judicial Officers and the  

District Judge were unable to enter the court building.   

c) In view of the above situation, the District Judge sent a  

Fax  message  to  the  Registrar  General  of  the  High  Court  

requesting  him  to  take  appropriate  instructions  and  

directions.     On  the  basis  of  the  said  information,  on  

15.01.2007, the then Acting Chief Justice of the High Court  

sitting in a Bench issued two Suo Motu Rules of Contempt,  

4

one,  against  the  16  persons  actively  associated  with  the  

aforesaid Committee to show cause as to why they are creating  

impediments  in  functioning  of  the  judiciary  in  the  District  

Court by obstructing Judicial Officers from entering into the  

Court  premises and the other  upon the Director General  of  

Police,  Government  of  West  Bengal,  the  District  Magistrate,  

Jalpaiguri,  the  Superintendent  of  Police,  Jalpaiguri  and the  

Inspector-in-charge, Kotwali Police Station, Jalpaiguri to show  

cause as to why they remained silent  spectators in spite  of  

repeated directions.    

d) On the same day, the Committee withdrew the Satyagrah  

and  removed  the  rostrum  and  cleared  the  entry  gate.   In  

response  to  the  Rules,  the  appellants  herein  filed  their  

affidavits  before  the  High  Court.   After  examining  the  

appellants  herein,  the  High  Court,  by  impugned  judgment  

dated 02.03.2007, imposed simple imprisonment for a term of  

six months with a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default of  

payment  of  fine  within  a  period  of  one  month,  to  further  

undergo imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved by the order  

5

of the High Court, the appellants/contemnors have filed these  

appeals under Section 19 of the Act.   

3) Heard  M/s  Mukul  Rohtagi,  Kalyan  Bandopadhyay,  R.  

Venkataramani,  learned  senior  counsel,  P.C.  Sen,  Tara  

Chandra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.  

Pradip  Kr.  Ghosh  and  Mr.  Jaideep  Gupta,  learned  senior  

counsel for the respondent-High Court.

4) Since we are going to dispose of all the 18 appeals by this  

judgment, the following details pertaining to these appeals are  

relevant:

S.No. Name Age Profession Case  Number  (Crl. Appeal)

1. Sri Mukulesh Sanyal (Dead) 84 Editor  of  a  local weekly

No. 395/2007

2. Sri Chitta Dey 84 Trade  Unionist

No. 390/2007

3. Sri Benoy Kanta Bhowmic 83 Advocate No. 394/2007 4. Sri  Samarendra  Prosad  

Biswas 78 Business No. 396/2007

5. Smt. Pratima Bagchi (Dead) 74 Teacher  (Retd.)

No. 399/2007

6. Sri Jiten Das 73 Ex.M.P.  (Retd.  Professor)

No. 362/2007

7. Sri Sadhan Bose 73 Business No. 398/2007 8. Sri Amal Roy 64 Political  

Worker  No. 392/2007

9. Sri Debaprasad Roy 63 M.L.A. No. 358/2007 10. Sri  Anup  Bhushan  Vohra  

(D.G.) 63 DGP,  W.B.  

(Retd.)  No. 339/2007

11. Sri  Prasanta  Chandra  (Inspector-in-Charge)  

58 Dy.  S.P.,  Murshidabad  

No. 346/2007

6

12. Sri Subhas Kumar Dutta 57 Teacher No. 393/2007 13. Sri  Rabindra  Narayan  

Chowdhury  57 Business No. 400/2007

14. Sri Somnath Pal 46 Business No. 388/2007

15. Sri Sanjoy Chakraborty 44 Secretary  of  an NGO  

No. 397/2007

16. Sri Prabal Raha 40 Social  worker  

No. 391/2007

17. Sri Tripurari (S.P.) 39 D.C. Central No. 345/2007 18. Sri R. Ranjit 38 D.M.,  

Jalpaiguri,  W.B.  

No. 340/2007

5) Since  all  the  appellants  were  proceeded  for  criminal  

contempt  under  the  Act,  it  is  useful  to  refer  the  relevant  

provisions applicable for disposal of these appeals.  Section 2  

(c)  of  the  Act  defines  “criminal  contempt”  which  reads  as  

under:

“2.(c) “criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by  words,  spoken  or  written,  or  by  signs,  or  by  visible  representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of  any other act whatsoever which- (i) scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to  lower the authority of, any court; or  

(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due  course of any judicial proceeding; or  

(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends  to  obstruct,  the  administration  of  justice  in  any  other  manner;”

Section 12 of  the  Act  provides  punishment  for  contempt  of  

court.  The procedure to be followed has been dealt with in the  

Calcutta High Court Contempt of Courts Rules, 1975.  It  is  

7

settled  law  that  the  law  of  contempt  must  be  strictly  

interpreted  and  complied  with  before  any  person  can  be  

committed for contempt.     

6) In Muthu Karuppan vs. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi & Anr.,  

AIR 2011  SC 1645  =  (2011)  5  SCC 496,  this  Court,  while  

considering the criminal contempt held that the court should  

be  satisfied  that  there  is  a  reasonable  foundation  for  the  

charge  and  further  held  that  the  punishment  cannot  be  

imposed on mere probabilities and the court can not punish  

the  alleged  contemnor  without  any  foundation  merely  on  

conjectures and surmises.  How the criminal contempt has to  

be proceeded with has been explained in para 9, which reads  

as follows:

“9. The  contempt  proceedings  being  quasi-criminal  in  nature,  burden  and  standard  of  proof  is  the  same  as  required in criminal cases. The charges have to be framed as  per the statutory rules framed for the purpose and proved  beyond reasonable doubt keeping in mind that the alleged  contemnor is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Law does not  permit  imposing any punishment in contempt proceedings  on mere probabilities, equally, the court cannot punish the  alleged  contemnor  without  any  foundation  merely  on  conjectures and surmises. As observed above, the contempt  proceeding  being  quasi-criminal  in  nature  require  strict  adherence  to  the  procedure  prescribed  under  the  rules  applicable in such proceedings.”

8

In para 23, it  was further held that any deviation from the  

prescribed Rules should not be accepted or condoned lightly  

and must be deemed to be fatal to the proceedings taken to  

initiate action for contempt.

7) With  this  background,  let  us  analyse  whether  the  

appellants  have  committed  criminal  contempt  in  terms  of  

Section 2(c) of the Act and whether the High Court is justified  

in  imposing  simple  imprisonment  for  a  term of  six  months  

with  a  fine  of  Rs.  2,000/-  each  and,  in  default,  to  further  

undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

8) The impugned order of  the Division Bench shows that  

these appellants were punished for criminal contempt not only  

on  the  ground  that  they  prevented  the  Judicial  Officers  

including  the  District  Judge  and  other  staff  members  from  

entering into the District Court at Jalpaiguri, but also on the  

ground of alleged serious lapses/inaction on their part.  It is  

useful  to  refer  the  findings recorded by  the Division Bench  

regarding the role and part played by the appellants which are  

as under:-  

“We,  therefore,  unhesitantly  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Director-General  of  the  Police,  the  District  

9

Magistrate of the District, the District Superintendent of the  Police and the Inspector-in-charge of the local Police Station  have  committed  not  only  the  Criminal  Contempt  of  the  Judges  Court  in  the  District  of  Jalpaiguri  by  deliberately  taking  no  action  against  the  agitators  resulting  in  interference with due Administration of Justice in the said  District and at the same time the Director-General of Police  has in addition to that also committed further contempt of  this Court by disobeying the order of the then Chief Justice  to  take  immediate  step  for  restoration  of  the  function  of  Judiciary in the said District.

We disbelieve the statements of the three Officers of  the District Administration that the learned District Judge  never sought for Police assistance and on the other hand,  supported  the  agitators.  In  his  affidavit,  the  District  Magistrate  was  constrained  to  admit  that  at  least  on  January 10,  2007 the learned District  Judge-in-Charge  in  writing asked for his assistance but in spite of such fact, he  did not find any time to take appropriate step till January  15, 2007, the day on which we issued the Rules and directed  the Chief Secretary to take appropriate step for restoration of  the functions of Judiciary in the District. Moreover, the fact  that a G.D. was lodged complaining obstruction to the entry  of the employees of the Court was sufficient for taking action  to  see  the  Judiciary  could  function  in  the  District  in  accordance  with  the  Constitution  of  India  and  further  request for Police help at the instance of the learned District  Judge was unnecessary. The justification sought to be given  that the agitation was peaceful was insignificant in the fact  of the present case in view of the fact that the question of  “breach  of  peace”  arises  if  there  is  a  resistance  at  the  instance  of  an  opposition  group.  The  Judges  are  not  expected to wrestle with those agitators by taking the law in  their  own  hands  of  the  purpose  of  entering  the  Court  premises. They complied with the law of the land by drawing  attention of  the local Police by lodging a G.D. through an  employee of the Court and at the same time, it has been well  established  from  the  materials  on  record  that  the  local  administration was quite alive to the situation that due to  the purported ”Satyagraha” by staging agitation and raising  a rostrum at the main entrance  gate of the Court premises,  there  was  interference  with  due  Administration  of  Justice  and  in  such  circumstances,  it  was  the  duty  of  the  local  administration  to  take  step  of  their  own  once  they  found  commission of a cognizable offence.”     

1

9) As stated in the earlier paras, a Committee constituted of  

some local persons, who were active in public life, along with  

the lawyers at Jalpaiguri,  had passed certain resolutions to  

stage Satyagrah for the formation of High Court Circuit Bench  

in front  of  the District  Court  at  Jalpaiguri.   As a follow-up  

action, the Members of the Committee put their resolution into  

action  on  15.12.2006  outside  one  of  the  two  gates  of  the  

District Court premises that is the main gate and put up a  

rostrum there on which a number of persons started sitting in  

Satyagrah.   

10) It is the stand of the police that on being aware of the  

said  resolution  of  the  Committee,  on  15.12.2006,  a  police  

picket  consisting  of  three  officers  and  four  constables  was  

deployed under Sub-inspector Dilip Kumar Sen at the place of  

Satyagrah to watch and monitor the law and order situation.  

It  was pointed  out that the Sub-inspector Dilip  Kumar Sen  

noted the above details in the General Diary (GD) of Kotwali  

P.S., under GDE No. 899 dated 15.12.2006 recording that the  

Judicial Officers and the staff of the District Court had arrived  

at  the  court  premises,  but  they  were  persuaded  by  the  

1

members of the Committee not to enter into the Court.  The  

officer has also recorded that the Judicial Officers did not ask  

the police for help to enter into the court.  Mr. Rohtagi, learned  

senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  appellant-  Anup  Bhushan  

Vohra,  former Director General  of  Police in Criminal  Appeal  

No. 339 of 2007 has brought to our notice a true extract of GD  

entry made on 15.12.2006 under GDE No. 899 which reads as  

under:-

“It  is  important  to  add here that  each of  the  Judges and  Magistrates  (total  of  11)  of  the  said  District  Court  are  provided with one armed policemen and two other security  guards as normal security to enable them to fulfill the duties  of their office: i.e. the Judges and Magistrates of the District  Court  always  had  27  security  guards  including  9  armed  guards.”

The  further  information  relates  to  GD  entry  made  on  

19.12.2006 under GDE No. 1152, in which the S.I. detailed for  

duty  at  the  District  Court  recorded  that  with  force  he  was  

present at the main gate of the court premises and at 1050  

hrs.  when some of  the  Judicial  Officers  had arrived  at  the  

main  gate  of  the  District  Court,  they  were  requested  “with  

folded hands” by the agitating Members of the Committee not  

to  enter  into  the  court.   The  Judicial  Officers,  thereafter,  

returned back.  The S.I.  and his force were standing at the  

1

spot, but there was no order/request by the Judicial Officers  

for help to enter into the court.  It is also pointed out that in  

all  those  days,  there  was  no  pushing  or  cajoling,  no  

threatening gestures made, no law and order problem and no  

circumstance  was  created  for  the  police  to  interfere  using  

force.  

11) Apart from the GD entries made in those dates, similar  

effect GD entries were made at the local police station by the  

concerned police officials who were detailed with force for duty  

at the District Court on 22.12.2006, 26.12.2006, 27.12.2006,  

31.12.2006,  02.01.2007  and  05.01.2007  under  GDE  Nos.  

1338, 1620, 1690, 1916, 91 and 275 respectively.  All those  

GD entries are placed before us in the form of annexures.  By  

pointing out these details,  learned senior counsel  appearing  

for the appellants pointed out that there was no intimation by  

the High Court till 05.01.2007.  They also highlighted that at  

no point of time, there was any law and order problem and  

there was no coercion exercised by any of those conducting  

Satyagrah.   On  every  single  day  from  15.12.2006  to  

05.01.2007, whenever Judicial Officers of the District Court,  

1

Jalpaiguri  attempted to enter  into  the  Court  premises,  they  

were  requested  by  the  persons  sitting  in  Satyagrah  not  to  

enter the court premises and thereupon the Judges and the  

officials and the staff voluntarily complied with and went back.  

12) From the materials placed on record, it is seen that only  

on  05.01.2007,  the  Registrar  General  of  the  Calcutta  High  

Court,  for  the  first  time,  spoke  over  phone  to  Shri  Anup  

Bhushan Vohra, DGP to enquire whether he knew about the  

problem  which  was  “deteriorating”  as  no  work  was  taking  

place in the Court at Jalpaiguri.  In the affidavit filed by Mr.  

Vohra, it is stated that the Registrar General then handed over  

the phone to the then Chief Justice of the High Court - Hon’ble  

Mr.  Justice  V.S.  Sirpurkar,  who  directed  him to  “keep  the  

situation under watch”.  The affidavit further shows that the  

appellant Vohra assured the then Hon’ble Chief Justice that  

he would speak to the Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri and  

the Home Secretary of the State.  According to him, as assured  

to the then Chief Justice, he informed both the officers.  He  

also mentioned that this was not done in writing, but orally  

over  phone  to  Mr.  Prasad  Ray,  Home  Secretary  and  Mr.  

1

Tripurari, Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri.  The assertion  

of the DGP in the form of an affidavit shows that there was no  

order  by  the  then  Hon’ble  Chief  Justice  either  on  the  

administrative side or on the judicial side but only over phone  

he  was asked to  watch the situation and,  in  turn,  he  also  

assured  him  as  well  as  intimated  the  same  to  the  Home  

Secretary and Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri.  In those  

circumstances and in view of the the materials placed by the  

DGP, the conclusion of the Division Bench that there was an  

“order” by the then Chief Justice is factually incorrect.   

13) It is brought to our notice that for the first time, that is,  

on  09.01.2007,  the  District  Judge  communicated  to  the  

Registrar  General  of  the  High  Court  regarding  cessation  of  

work by the Members of the Local Bar Association, Jalpaiguri  

and the  Committee  for  Circuit  Bench of  the  High  Court  at  

Calcutta.   The contents  of  the  said letter  are  also  relevant,  

which reads as under:

“To The Registrar General, High Court, Appellate Side, Calcutta.

Dated : the 9th January, 2007.

1

Sub:  Cease  work  by  the  members  of  the  Local  Bar  Association,  Jalpaiguri  and  Samannyay  Committee  for  Circuit Bench of the Hon’ble Court at Calcutta.

Sir, With due respect,  I  am to inform that today i.e.,  on  

9.1.07 I,  along with all  Judicial  Officers,  had been to  the  Court  but  at  the  entrance  gate  of  the  Court  premises  we  were obstructed to enter into the premises.

I  held  discussion  with  the  agitating  members  and  insisted that we should be allowed to enter into the premises  for smooth functioning of the judicial administration but it  was impressed by the agitating members of the Samannyay  Committee,  mainly,  along  with  member  of  local  bar  that  when  the  door  for  discussion  is  open  we  should  communicate the Hon’ble Court that the impasse can only  be resolved by discussion from and on behalf of the Hon’ble  Court. The agitating members did not agree to my proposal  to allow us to enter into the premises

The  recent  resolution,  enclosed  herewith,  will  show  that  they  have  taken  up  different  agitation  programs  till  15.1.07  copy  of  which  is  enclosed  herewith.  When  persuasion failed, we have come to the chamber and office of  the District Judge at his bungalow where all the members of  the office staff have also came.

This  is  for  your  information  and  we  are  soliciting  necessary instruction from your honour’s end.

Yours faithfully,

(S. Bhattacharjee) Add  District  Judge,  1st Court  and  District  Judge-in-Charge,  Jalpaiguri.

Memo No. 17/G Dated: 9.1.07.

Copy  forwarded  to  the  Superintendent  of  Police,  Jalpaiguri, for information and necessary action.

Sd/-(S. Bhattacharjee)

1

Add  District  Judge,  1st Court  and  District  Judge-in-Charge,  Jalpaiguri.”

It was highlighted that no immediate response was received by  

the District Judge from the Registrar General, particularly, as  

to the contents of his letter.

14) However, on 10.01.2007, it was pointed out that for the  

first  time  the  Addl.  District  Judge/District  Judge-in-Charge  

Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, wrote directly to the District Magistrate  

Mr. R. Ranjit (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 340 of 2007)  

requesting him to look into the matter and make endeavour to  

resolve the crisis so that the Judges could enter into the court  

premises to discharge their functions.  The GD entry made on  

10.01.2007  under  No.  614  recorded  that  police  force  was  

present at the main gate of the District Court from 1000 hrs.  

to  1300  hrs.  and  the  Judicial  Officers  had  come  in  some  

vehicles and after talking to the Members of the Committee,  

who with folded hands requested them not to enter into the  

court, they left the place.  It was emphasised that even on this  

day,  there  was no request  from the Judicial  Officers to the  

police to help them enter into the court.   

1

15) The GD entry made on 13.01.2007 under No. 795 was  

pressed  into  service  which  shows  that  a  strong  police  

arrangement was made at the District Court where Shri T.K.  

Das Addl. Superintendent of Police (HQ), Shri Swapan Kumar  

Das, Dy. Superintendent of Police (HQ) and Shri David Ivan  

Lepcha  had  supervised  the  duty  and  Shri  Ashok  Das,  

Executive Magistrate,  was also present.   It  was pointed out  

that in the afternoon of 13.01.2007, the District Magistrate,  

the  Superintendent  of  Police  and  other  officers  convened  a  

meeting  at  the  Circuit  House  with  the  Members  of  the  

Committee  and  had  told  them  in  no  uncertain  terms  that  

administration will not wait for any “amicable settlement” any  

further and would resort to applying force on 15.01.2007 to  

ensure proper functioning of  the court.   This was conveyed  

over phone to the District Judge and it was also informed to  

him that heavy police arrangement would again be made on  

15.01.2007 onwards to ensure that Judges and Magistrates  

may enter into the court without any hindrance.   This was  

also stated in the GD Entry No. 961 dated 15.01.2007.  When  

the Addl.  District  Judge/District  Judge-in-Charge arrived at  

1

the court gate at 1030 hrs., he was requested by the Addl. SP  

to  enter  into  the  court  premises,  but  after  seeing  a  large  

gathering  of  the  Members  of  the  Committee  and  their  

sympathisers, the District Judge decided not to enter the court  

and returned back.  It was recorded in the said GD entry that  

the Members of the Committee and their sympathisers were  

successfully persuaded to remove the rostrum from the gate of  

the  court  premises,  which  they  themselves  removed.   The  

court gate was opened by 1530 hrs., and the District Judge  

was also  intimated about  the  same.   Apart  from the  above  

information, it was also pointed out that between 15.12.2006,  

the  day  from  which  the  Committee  started  agitation  

to15.01.2007  when  they  called  off  the  agitation,  all  

bail/custody  matters  were  dealt  with  by  the  

Judges/Magistrates at their  official  residences in Jalpaiguri,  

arrested accused persons were produced by the police before  

them  and  in  total  192  such  cases  were  dealt  with  by  the  

Magistrates at their residences during the said period, namely,  

15.12.2006 to 15.01.2007.  

1

16) Apart  from  the  above  details,  Mr.  Vohra  has  also  

highlighted  that  he  was  informed  of  the  importance  of  the  

situation  only  on  05.01.2007  and  no  specific  

information/report  was  received  before  this  date  from  any  

State or Central Government Agency or officer about the same.  

He asserted that he acted promptly on or after 05.01.2007,  

briefing the Home Secretary of  the State,  Superintendent  of  

Police, Jalpaiguri.  

17) In the meantime, it was pointed out that the then Chief  

Justice of the High Court, Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar  

was  elevated  to  the  Supreme  Court  and  he  took  oath  on  

12.01.2007 and on 15.01.2007, the then Acting Chief Justice -  

Mr.  Justice  Bhaskar  Bhattacharya,  sitting  in  a  Bench  Suo  

Motu issued two Rules to the following effect.   

“The  learned  Registrar  General  of  this  Court  has  drawn  attention  of  this  Court  to  the  fact  that  due  to  agitation  started  by  the  "Circuit  Bench  'O'  Sarbik  Unnyayan  Dabi  Adyay  Samannaya  Committee,  Jalpaiguri,"  the  Judicial  Officers  in the District  of  Jalpaiguri  including  the learned  District Judge, Jalpaiguri, are unable to enter into the Court  premises from December 15, 2006.

Office of the learned District Judge immediately drew  attention  of  such  fact  to  the  Inspector-in-charge,  Kotwali  Police Station,  Jalpaiguri  Sadar,  but no action was taken.  Subsequently, the learned District Judge brought the matter  to the notice of the learned Registrar General of this Court,  who in terms of the order by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice  

2

of this Court,  instructed the learned District Judge to ask  the Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri  to take immediate  action, so that the Judicial Officers can enter into the Court  premises for doing their duties.

Although  the  learned  District  Judge,  Jalpaiguri  conveyed the decision of this Court to the Superintendent of  Police, Jalpaiguri, so that the Judicial Officers can enter into  the  Court  building  and  function,  the  Superintendent  of  Police, Jalpaiguri paid deaf ears to the request of the learned  District Judge. Subsequently, the learned District Judge was  directed to approach the District Magistrate of the District,  so that the judiciary in the District can function. In spite of  such communication, no action was taken from the end of  the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri.

It appears from the note given by the learned Registrar  General  of  this Court,  that on January 5,  2007,  the then  Hon'ble  Chief  Justice  of  this  Court  directed  the  Director  General of Police, West Bengal over phone to ensure proper  functioning of the Jalpaiguri Court by taking effective steps  without further delay and as a follow up action, the learned  Registrar  General  also  talked  to  the  Director  General  of  Police, West Bengal and enquired as to what effective steps  had been taken for bringing back the normal situation, so  that  the  learned  District  Judge's  Court  could  function  properly.  

The Director General of Police, however, informed the  learned Registrar General of this Court that he would take  up the matter with the Home Secretary, Government of West  Bengal  and  in  the  meantime,  the  learned  District  Judge,  Jalpaiguri  should  be  asked  to  write  to  the  District  Magistrate,  Jalpaiguri  requesting  him  to  take  steps  for  ensuring proper functioning of the Courts in Jalpaiguri with  a copy to the Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri.

As  pointed  out  earlier,  in  spite  of  written  communication given by the learned District  Judge to the  District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, till  today the Judges in the  District Judge's Court at Jalpaiguri are unable to enter into  the Court building.

It appears from the various papers submitted by the  learned District Judge through fax message to the learned  Registrar General of this Court that the "Circuit Bench 'O'  Sarbik  Unnayayan  Dabi  Adyay  Samannaya  Committee,  

2

Jalpaiguri" took a resolution of obstructing the ingress and  egress  to  the  Court  building  by various  resolutions  taken  from time to time.  From the resolution allegedly  taken on  December  23,  2006  which  has  been  sent  to  the  learned  Registrar General of this Court by the learned District Judge  concerned, it appears that in a meeting held at Nababbari  premises  the  following  persons  participated  and  unanimously  took  a  resolution  to  continue  with  the  agitation:

(1) Sri Mukulesh Sanyal, President;

(2) Sri Sri Jiten Das, Ex. M.P. (C.P.M.);

(3) Sri Sri Debaprasad Roy, M.L.A. (Congress);

(4) Smt. Pratima Bagchi (R.S.P.):

(5) Sri Prabal Saha (Forward Block);

(6) Sri Pabitra Bhattacharyya (C.P.I.);

(7) Sri Somenath Pal (T.M.C.);

(8) Sri Amal Roy (C.P.I.M.L.);

(9) Sri Subhas Kumar Dutta, C.P.I.M.L. (Liberation);

(10) Sri Rabindra Lal Chakraborty (B.J.P.);

(11) Sri Chittaq De (Convenor, Co-ordination Committee of  Plantation Works);

(12) Sri Sadhan Bose (Merchant Association);

(13) Sri Sarnarendra Prasad Biswas (North Bengal Chamber  of Commerce);

(14) Sri Biswajit Das (Federation of Chamber of Commerce,  Siliguri);

(15)  Sri  Sanjoy  Chakraborty  (Jalpaiguri  Welfare  Organisation).

It further appears from the resolution of the meeting  dated December 18, 2006 of the said "Jalpaiguri 'O' Sarbik  Unnyayan Dabi Adyay Samannaya Committee" that one Sri  

2

Benoy  Kanta  Bhowmick,  presided  over  as  President,  supported the said illegal act of the Committee.

In  our  view,  the  aforesaid  act  on  the  part  of  those  persons  abovenamed,  acting  on  behalf  of  the  said  Committee, has resulted in constitutional breakdown in the  District of Jalpaiguri, as a result, the citizens of Jalpaiguri  District  are  immensely  prejudiced  and such act  interferes  with  and  obstructs  administration  of  justice  in  the  said  District.

We are also prima facie convinced that inaction on the  part of the Director General of Police, West Bengal, District  Magistrate,  Jalpaiguri,  the  Superintendent  of  Police,  Jalpaiguri and I.C., Kotwali Police Station, Jalpaiguri Sadar  amounts  to  aiding  and  abetting  the  members  of  the  said  Committee, as a result of which, the judiciary is unable to  function in that District for the last one month and all those  persons  are  prima  facie  guilty  of  criminal  contempt  of  a  serious nature.

Accordingly, let a Rule of contempt be issued calling  upon all those 15 persons and Sri Benoy Kanta Bhowrnick,  abovenamed,  to  show  cause  why  they  should  not  be  penalised  or  otherwise  dealt  with  for  committing  criminal  contempt  as  defined  in  Section  2(c)  of  the  Contempt  of  Courts Act, 1971 by creating impediment in functioning the  judiciary in the District of Jalpaiguri for the last one month  by restraining the Judicial  Officers  from entering  into the  Court building.

Similarly,  a Rule  be  also  issued upon the  Director  General  of  Police,  West  Bengal,  District  Magistrate,  Jalpaiguri,  Superintendent  of  Police,  Jalpaiguri,  Inspector- in-charge, Kotwali Police Station, Jalpaiguri Sadar to show  cause why they should not be penalised or otherwise dealt  with for aiding and abetting the aforesaid criminal contempt  by  remaining  as  silent  spectators  in  spite  of  repeated  directions not only given by the learned District Judge of the  District, but also by the learned Registrar General and the  former Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court.

Let  these  Rules  be  immediately  served  upon all  the  concerns through the Chief Secretary, Government of West  Bengal by tomorrow.

2

The Chief  Secretary,  Government  of  West  Bengal,  is  directed  to  communicate  to  this  Court  what  action  the  District  Administration  or  the  State  Administration  has  taken  for  removing  the  impediments  creating  by  those  persons.

Having  regard  to  the  serious  nature  of  a  criminal  contempt  prima  facie  found  by  this  Court,  we  direct  the  Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal to see that in  course of this day proper step is taken, so that the learned  District Judge and all the Judicial Officers including the staff  of  the  District  Court  may  enter  into  the  building  and  function normally.

The  Chief  Secretary  will  further  ensure  that  no  obstruction takes place in the matter of proper functioning of  the Court in any part of the said District.

Office  is  directed  to  see  that  this  order  is  communicated to the Chief Secretary, Government of West  Bengal by 2 p.m. of this day.

Let Rules be also issued by the office in course of this  day.

The  Rules  are  returnable  on  January  19,  2007  at  10.30 a.m.

On the returnable date, the alleged contemnors above  named are directed to be present in Court at 10.30 a.m.”

18) Pursuant to the issuance of the above Rules, the DGP-

Mr. Vohra and other three officials of the State Government  

i.e.,  the  District  Magistrate,  Superintendent  of  Police  and  

Inspector in-Charge, Kotwali P.S. Jalpaiguri also filed separate  

affidavits  highlighting  their  stand.   Apart  from the  affidavit  

filed by the Inspector in-Charge of Kotwali P.S., copies of the  

2

entries made in the GD (which we referred in the earlier paras)  

maintained at the said P.S. were annexed to the affidavit.   

19) It is further seen that all the officials including the DGP  

were examined by the High Court while hearing the contempt  

petition and their  depositions were recorded.  We were also  

taken through their depositions and these were mostly in the  

nature  of  cross-examination.   Learned  senior  counsel  

appearing for the DGP has highlighted even the copies of fax  

messages sent by the District Judge to the Registrar General  

of the High Court on various dates which were supplied to him  

after  cross  examination  by  the  court.   Even  otherwise,  as  

rightly  pointed  out  that  in  none  of  the  fax  messages,  the  

Judges/Magistrates  had  requested  the  police  for  help  to  

neither enter into the court nor do the fax messages record  

that they went back to their residences voluntarily on being  

requested by the agitators.  The impugned order of the High  

Court also shows that apart  from the official  witnesses, the  

other parties were also heard on 16.02.2007 by the Bench and  

ultimately  the  impugned  order  was  passed  on  02.03.2007  

convicting the appellants for criminal contempt of court and  

2

sentencing  them  to  simple  imprisonment  for  a  term  of  six  

months with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each.  

20) Though the High Court  has concluded that the above-

mentioned government  officials  had “aided and abetted”  the  

perpetrators to agitation, as rightly pointed out by the learned  

senior counsel for the appellants, there is no material/basis  

for such conclusion.  We have already pointed out that from  

the  GD entries  on  various  dates,  i.e.,  from  15.12.2006  till  

15.01.2007,  on  all  working  days,  whenever  the  Judicial  

Officers  reach  the  main  gate  of  the  District  Court,  the  

organisers made a request with folded hands not to enter into  

the  court  premises  and  by  their  persuasion,  the  Judicial  

Officers returned to their homes.  We have also noted that on  

any  day  neither  the  District  Judge  nor  any  other  Judicial  

Officers directed the District Magistrate or the police officers  

present in the premises to remove all those persons.  On the  

other hand, till the agitation was called off on 15.01.2007, the  

agitation was entirely peaceful and there was no law and order  

problem,  sufficient  police  force  was  stationed  and  that  the  

2

Members  of  the  Committee  and  their  sympathisers  kept  

requesting the District Judge/Magistrates and the officials and  

staff with folded hands not to enter the courts in view of their  

demand for  establishment  of  the  High  Court  Circuit  Bench  

and  the  District  Judge/Judicial  Officers  and  the  staff  

voluntarily returned home and did not ask the police to help  

them get into the court premises.  We have already pointed out  

the assertion made in the form of an affidavit by the DGP - Mr.  

Vohra that when the then Chief Justice (Hon’ble Mr. Justice  

V.S. Sirpurkar) talked to him over phone, he did not order or  

direct him to remove the agitators by force but only directed  

him “to monitor the situation”.  There is no contra assertion or  

statement from the side of the High Court through Registrar  

General,  who  was  supposed  to  be  present  when  the  then  

Hon’ble Chief Justice discussed with the DGP over phone.  

21) We are conscious of the fact that it is the responsibility of  

the  State  Administration  to  see  that  courts  function  on  all  

working days without any hindrance.  The administration of  

justice  should  never  be  stalled  at  the  instance  of  anyone  

including  the  members  of  the  bar  even  for  any  cause.  

2

However,  we  have  already  noted  that  though  the  said  

Committee started Satyagrah in front of the District Court as  

early as on 15.12.2006 till  05.01.2007, no request from the  

District  Judge  or  from the  Registrar  General  for  removal  of  

rostrum  put  up  in  front  of  the  gate  and  clearing  the  

agitators/satyagrahis who comprises not only members of the  

bar,  legislature,  NGOs,  persons  from  media  and  

representatives from different walks of life was made.  We have  

already  observed  that  there  is  no  reason  to  disbelieve  the  

assertion of the DGP Mr. Vohra about the conversation made  

by the then Hon’ble Chief Justice and it is the definite case of  

the  DGP that  he  was asked “to  monitor  the  situation”  and  

“keep a watch over the development”.  He asserted that there  

was no direction either from the then Chief Justice or from the  

Registrar  General  for  taking  appropriate  action  against  the  

agitators.     

22) We are also satisfied that in none of the fax messages  

sent by the District Judge to the Registrar General, there was  

even  a  whisper  that  the  Judges  at  the  District  Court  had  

asked for  any  police  help  and there  was  no  grievance  that  

2

police help was not made available to the Judges.  In the facts  

and materials  placed and demonstrated,  we are of  the view  

that  the  conclusion  of  the  High  Court  that  the  appellants,  

more  particularly,  government  officials  were  responsible  for  

“aiding and abetting the agitators  by non-action” cannot be  

accepted.

23) We are also satisfied from the materials placed that the  

police force was present at the gate of the District Court on all  

days except Sundays and holidays to supervise law and order  

situation and to assist the Judges and Judicial Officers, the  

fact remains that the District Judge and the Judicial Officers  

never asked for any police help for their entry into the court  

premises  on  all  days  starting  from 15.12.2006 ending  with  

15.01.2007 and all  of  them acceded to  the  humble  request  

made by the agitators and returned home.  It is true that on  

10.01.2007,  the  District  Judge  and  the  Judicial  Officers  

requested  the  District  Magistrate  to  take  sincere  efforts  to  

resolve  the  crisis  so  that  they  may  enter  into  the  court  

premises and discharge judicial functions.  

2

24) Another aspect with which we are unable to accept the  

conclusion of the Division Bench relates to the fact that fax  

messages were sent from the office of the District Magistrate.  

On this assumption,  the Division Bench concluded that the  

District Magistrate himself had knowledge about the contents  

of the fax messages.  It was explained that fax messages were  

sent from one of the nine fax machines installed at different  

rooms at the premises of the Office of the District Magistrate  

and,  as rightly  pointed out,  this  does not necessarily  mean  

that the District Magistrate had knowledge about the matter of  

the contents.  Merely because the fax machines available at  

the office of the District Magistrate were utilised, it cannot be  

presumed that the District  Magistrate  could have noted the  

contents.   The said assumption cannot be accepted without  

any further material.  

25) It is true that several litigants might have suffered due to  

the non-functioning of the courts, however, it is brought to our  

notice that the concerned Magistrates were holding court at  

their residences and chambers to deal with all urgent matters  

3

and 192 cases were dealt with by different Magistrates during  

the period 15.12.2006 to 15.01.2007.  

26) We are also satisfied that there was no wrongful restraint  

on the Judges and Judicial Officers of the District Court as is  

evident from the GD entries wherein it was recorded that the  

Judges and Judicial Officers had acceded to the request of the  

agitators  and restrained themselves  from entering the court  

premises  though  police  force  was  present  at  the  spot  to  

facilitate their entry as and when directed.  

27) Though  the  Division  Bench  recorded  a  finding  in  the  

impugned  judgment  that  because  of  the  obstruction,  the  

administration of justice in the District Court, Jalpaiguri was  

obstructed for a month in spite of specific request of District  

Judge, it was brought to our notice (which we have already  

noted in the earlier paras) that the District Judge for the first  

time  on  10.01.2007  had  communicated  to  the  District  

Magistrate with a request to make endeavour to resolve the  

crisis and even in that communication there was no mention  

of using police force to remove the agitators by force.  It is also  

evident that Judges of the District Court wanted a peaceful  

3

solution and without use of force although in the fax messages  

sent by the District Magistrate to the Registrar General, it was  

complained  that  the  Judges  in  the  District  Court  were  not  

allowed to enter into the court premises.  

28) We are also satisfied that there is no acceptable material  

in holding that the officials committed criminal  contempt of  

the Judges in the District of Jalpaiguri by deliberately taking  

no action against the agitators resulting in interference with  

the  due administration  of  justice.   If  we  analyse  the  entire  

materials  including  their  statements,  affidavits,  GD  entries,  

fax  messages,  correspondence  between  District  Judge  and  

Registrar  General  and  District  Magistrate,  it  cannot  be  

concluded that the officials deliberately abstained from taking  

any action against the agitators.   

29) As mentioned above, in the absence of any order either  

on  the  judicial  side  by  the  then  Chief  Justice  or  any  

communication and direction through the  Registrar  General  

and in view of the assertion of DGP in the form of an affidavit  

about the conversation made by the then Chief Justice and  

himself,  the  contrary  conclusion  arrived  at  by  the  Division  

3

Bench holding that the DGP has disobeyed the order of the  

then Chief  Justice to take immediate step for restoration of  

functioning of the judiciary in the District cannot be accepted.  

30) In a matter of this nature, when the agitation started on  

15.12.2006 by way of a Committee comprising persons from  

different walks of  life  including members of  the bar,  media,  

business community, NGOs, elected representatives etc, it is  

but proper for the High Court to intervene at the earliest point  

of  time  by  sending  Administrative/Port-folio  Judge  or  the  

Registrar General to the spot.  Such recourse was admittedly  

not resorted to.   Till  05.01.2007,  no communication or any  

effort  was  made  by  the  Registrar  General  to  the  District  

administration,  particularly,  officers  concerned  and  to  the  

District Magistrate.  Even the District Judge did not make any  

request or issued directions for removal of the agitators who  

were conducting Satyagrah in a peaceful manner.   We have  

already pointed out that every day on their  request,  all  the  

Judicial  Officers  returned  home  to  avoid  any  confrontation  

with the members of the bar and the Committee comprising  

persons from different walks of life.  

3

31) In the earlier part of our order, we have highlighted that  

the  allegations  against  all  the  appellants  relate  to  criminal  

contempt.  Though the High Court has heard certain officials,  

it is the grievance of the appellants that proper procedure was  

not followed in all their cases.  In other words, “fair procedure”  

provided for “criminal contempt” had not been adhered to by  

the High Court.  It is also their grievance that even no formal  

charge  was  framed.   Inasmuch  as  the  matter  pertains  to  

criminal  contempt,  the  issue  is  to  be  proved  beyond  

reasonable doubt.  Admittedly, the District Judge did not file  

any affidavit  highlighting his stand and steps taken, if  any,  

even after knowing the claim of the appellants, particularly,  

with  reference  to  the  various  GD entries  and  their  specific  

stand.   We  are  also  satisfied  that  that  charge  against  the  

criminal  contempt  has  not  been  made  out  in  the  manner  

known to law.

32) It  is  also brought to our notice that all  the appellants  

filed separate  affidavits  explaining  their  stand and tendered  

unconditional  apology  at  the  earliest  point  of  time.  

Considering  the  nature  of  the  demand which,  according  to  

3

them, the High Court itself has passed a resolution acceding  

for the formation of the High Court Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri  

and other relevant materials, the Division Bench ought to have  

accepted  the  affidavits  tendering  apology.   In  fact,  the  

explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act enables  

the court to accept the apology if the same is  bona fide and  

discharge the accused accordingly.  Unfortunately, even such  

recourse was not followed by the High Court.  In appropriate  

case, the acceptability of unconditional apology and regret has  

been explained by this Court in O.P. Sharma & Ors. vs. High  

Court of Punjab & Haryana, 2011 (5) Scale 518 = (2011) 6  

SCC 86.  Considering the fact that the members of the bar  

who  misbehaved  with  the  court  by  raising  slogans  and  

realizing their mistake, dignity of the court and conduct of the  

legal profession tendered unconditional apology first before the  

Judge  before  whom the  unfortunate  incident  had occurred,  

before the High Court where suo motu contempt was initiated  

and  before  this  Court  by  filing  affidavits.   Expressing  

unconditional  apology  and  regret  with  an  undertaking  that  

they would maintain good behaviour in future and if the same  

3

is at the earliest point of time and bona fide, the Courts have  

to accept the same.  In view of the language used in “proviso”  

and “explanation” appended to Section 12(1) of the Act, this  

Court accepted the affidavits filed by all the appellants in O.P.  

Sharma (supra) and discharged all of them from the charges  

leveled against them.   

33) In  Vishram  Singh  Raghubanshi vs.  State  of  Uttar  

Pradesh,  (2011)  7  SCC  776,  this  Court  reiterated  the  

principles laid down in  O.P. Sharma (supra) with regard to  

tendering unconditional apology and acceptance of the same.   

34) Finally, it is worthwhile to refer to a Full Bench decision  

of  the  Bombay  High  Court  in  Mohandas  Karamchand  

Gandhi and Anr., AIR 1920 Bombay 175.  It was an appeal  

filed  against  Mohandas  Karamchand  Gandhi  and  Mahadev  

Haribhai  Desai,  who  were  the  Editor  and  Publisher  

respectively of a newspaper called ‘Young India’.   They were  

charged  with  contempt  of  Court  for  publishing  in  that  

newspaper, on 6th August, 1919, a letter dated 22nd April, 1919  

written by the District Judge of Ahmedabad to the Registrar of  

the High Court and also with publishing comments on that  

3

letter.  The gist of the charge was that the letter in question  

was a private official letter forming part of certain proceedings  

then pending in this Court and that the comments which both  

of  them  made  in  their  newspaper  were  comments  on  that  

pending case.   Ultimately,  this  Court,  after  stating that  the  

same ought not to have been published, reprimanded them.  

Though we are not concerned about the factual details and the  

ultimate decision, the following observation relating to power  

of the Court in contempt proceedings and how the same to be  

applied had been reiterated at page 180 which reads as under:

“………We have large powers and, in appropriate cases, can  commit offenders to prison for such period as we think fit  and can impose fines of such amount as we may judge right.  But just as our powers are large, so ought we, I think, to use  them with discretion and with moderation remembering that  the  only  object  we  have  in  view  is  to  enforce  the  due  administration of justice for the public benefit.”

35) It  is  not  in  dispute  that  all  the  appellants  have  filed  

separate  affidavits  tendering  unconditional  apology  at  the  

earliest point of time before the High Court.  We are satisfied  

that no case has been made out for criminal contempt against  

the appellants and there is nothing wrong in accepting their  

unconditional  apology  and  request  which  was  made  at  the  

earliest point of time.

3

36) Keeping  the  above  principles  and  factual  details  as  

mentioned  in  earlier  paras  in  mind,  we  pass  the  following  

order:  

In view of the above discussion and abundant materials,  

we are  satisfied that  in this  suo motu proceeding,  the High  

Court has not made out a case to punish all the appellants  

under “criminal contempt” in terms of Section 2 (c) read with  

Section 12 of the Act.  We were informed that the appellant-

Mukulesh Sanyal  in  Criminal  Appeal  No.  395  0f  2007 and  

appellant-Smt. Pratima Bagchi in Criminal Appeal No. 399 of  

2007 have been reported dead.  Thus these two appeals filed  

by them stand abated.  The conviction and sentence on the  

other appellants are set aside and all of them are discharged  

from the charges leveled against  them.  All  the appeals are  

allowed.                      

...…………………………………J.                   (P. SATHASIVAM)  

...…………………………………J.  NEW DELHI;         (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN)  SEPTEMBER 16, 2011.        

3